Template:Did you know nominations/Jessica Lussenhop

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Jessica Lussenhop

(

)

... that after investigating the Cornealious Michael Anderson III case, journalist Jessica Lussenhop brought broader attention to it after being featured in the podcast This American Life? Source: "Anderson’s story emerged last year in the St. Louis alt-weekly Riverfront Times. Jessica Lussenhop wrote about how Anderson...“This American Life” drew a lot of attention to the case with a report in February."

Alt1: ... that investigative journalist Jessica Lussenhop has written articles covering corruption in the standardized testing industry and on the murder and disappearance of Indigenous women?
Reviewed: Philip Treacy

Created by Jane023 (talk) and Silver seren (talk). Nominated by Silver seren (talk) at 23:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC).

Article is new and long enough. İt is neutral and cites sotces inline. However, 1- "... a bachelor's degree at University of Pennsylvania, Lussenhop earned an M.S. in journalism ..." is not mentioned in the reference, 2- "2010 in ..." is not mentioned in the reference,3- typo: "Minneapolos", 4 - "... the federal housing program in Laurinburg, North Carolina." is not mentioned in the reference. Please check. No significant text similarities were reported by "Earwig's Copyvio Detector". Thr hook is well-formatted and interesting. Its length is within limit. The hook!s "... national interest ..." is nmentioned neither in the article nor in the references. Please check. QPQ was done. Will approve after the a.m. issues are addressed. CeeGee 15:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@CeeGee: (1) I've removed that part of the sentence. I feel like it was probably originally sourced from her LinkedIn page, but it's not necessary for now. (2) I've fixed up the sentence and extended ref 1, which was published in 2010 and is about her hiring there. (3) Fixed the spelling. (4) Changed federal to local, per the reference. (5) I've changed national in the hook to broader. Silver seren^C 00:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Everything is fine now. Good to go. CeeGee 07:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't understand what's hooky about it. It seems to be telling some chronological story rather than catching the reader's interest. The repetition of "after" makes a strange run-on sentence. I see other things in the article that could be used for a better hook suggestion. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: How about that Alt hook then? Silver seren^C 01:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. @CeeGee: could you take a look at ALT1 please? Yoninah (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Article was reviewed by me in the past. ALT1 is well-formatted and interesting. Its length is within limit, and its fact is sourced inline. Everything is fine. Good to go. CeeGee 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)